ARCHIVE: Open Theism in Light of First John 3:20

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Freak
Knight, a question for you: Does God do what is always right? If the answer is yes then why the need for repentance (or change)?

If God had no ability to change (repent) He wouldn't be able to be merciful! If God couldn't be merciful He couldn't be a righteous God!

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

1. And God saw their works (What works? See point #2.)

2. that they (Nineveh) turned from their evil way

3. and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; (He said He was going to have Nineveh overthrown in 40 days - Jonah 3:4)

4. and he did it not. (He didn't have Nineveh overthrown in 40 days!)

What would the story be like with a god unable to change (repent)?

Maybe like this???
Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; yet God unable to change killed them anyway. - UCV (un-changeable version)

God is PERFECT BECAUSE He can change and repent and be merciful! Praise the Lord! Or as Jonah would say.... "I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. - Jonah 4:2

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Becky
Sorry, I didn't see your last post. I guess this is finished.

Ha! This is far from finished! There is always... Calvinist, philosophizer, evseeker.

 

[themuzicman]

why is it so hard to see that God could make His prophecies happen using His omnipotence, instead of seeing them through omnicience?

You all have to admit that the possibility exists.

Michael

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh.... philosophizer..... still waiting for a response to my following post from page #2:

Let's assume for sake of argument that God knows all of the future in exhaustive detail as you assert.

And at THIS moment He knows that my friend John Doe is not saved.

Let's further assume that God also knows that John Doe will live the next three years of his life rejecting God. Of course God also knows every other detail of John Does life for the next three years as well. God knows.... that in three years John Doe will eventually commit suicide by an overdose of drugs and die an unsaved man on March 3rd 2006.

John Doe knows none of this of course.

Ask yourself: Does John Doe have the ability to make God's foreknowledge of John's own life for the next three years NOT come to pass?

Can John Doe thwart God's exhaustive foreknowledge?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oh.... philosophizer.....while you are at it you never responded to the following:

Originally posted by philosophizer

I would prefer to respond to the specific rather than the general. Could you give me a few specific predictions that you would suggest I look at. I'll take a look at them as soon as I can.

Thanks.

OK.... I have tons of examples....

Let's start with one of them, in the book of Isaiah God speaks of Israel as a "Vinyard".

Isaiah 5:1 Now let me sing to my Well-beloved A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard: My Well-beloved has a vineyard On a very fruitful hill. 2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes. 3 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. 4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Two times God states that He expected one outcome but ended up with another.

IF.... God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future why would God expect an outcome that was not part of His exhaustive foreknowledge?

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Knight
Let's assume for sake of argument that God knows all of the future in exhaustive detail as you assert.

And at THIS moment He knows that my friend John Doe is not saved.

Let's further assume that God also knows that John Doe will live the next three years of his life rejecting God. Of course God also knows every other detail of John Does life for the next three years as well. God knows.... that in three years John Doe will eventually commit suicide by an overdose of drugs and die an unsaved man on March 3rd 2006.

John Doe knows none of this of course.

Ask yourself: Does John Doe have the ability to make God's foreknowledge of John's own life for the next three years NOT come to pass?

Can John Doe thwart God's exhaustive foreknowledge?

This question is completely circular. You describe a situation and then ask a question that doesn't pertain to any of the conditions of the situation you describe. You buddied up to the system I describe so that you can describe the setting and then revert back to your system to ask the question.

The possibility of THWARTING is a part of your system, not mine.

The situation you describe by default renders the possibility of John Doe thwarting God impossible, as it should be in any situation.

It is funny that you use the word "thwart." On www.dictionary.com, the definition reads:

1. To prevent the occurrence, realization, or attainment of: "They thwarted her plans."
2. To oppose and defeat the efforts, plans, or ambitions of.

Are you suggesting that under your described system, God can be thwarted? It may be hard to admit because of the negative connotation of the word but that is what your system demonstrates. I would offer the ability to do something unexpected to God as a description of "thwarting."

I appreciate the effort to bridge over to my system as an attempt to prove it wrong but you didn't fully make it. Your set-up pertained to my system while your question pertained to yours.

If you want to chase your tail, fine, but don't invite me to join you.

 

[philosophizer]

furthermore...

furthermore...

I dispute the use of the term "foreknowledge."

As I have already pointed out, our difference of opinion is rooted in our differing interpretations of time. I view time as an element of creation and a medium through which our existence travels. You view time as an element of perception where it simply conceptually describes the progression of events.

Through my interpretation time was created by God. God is therefore not contained within this medium. He is the Creator and is not subject to any of His creations.

In this system, God transcends time. He is outside its containment. Therefore His view is very different than ours. From inside, time is a progression of events. But from outside, time is a thing. Its nature is clearly viewable and its attributes are not progressive, but instantaneous.

If time is viewed from this perspective, what we call the past, future, and present would all be seen at once as one single big-picture.

"Foreknowledge" is therefore a misnomer. All-knowledge might be a better description.

We are at a disadvantage. We live within time. We remember the past and contemplate the future, but we live in the moment (present). Our perspective on time would not match the perspective of one who transcends time. I'm not trying to debate you by repeatedly stating that God doesn't change. I am, however, challenging the concept of change itself, and its setting within time.

 

[philosophizer]

And as to the bible situations you offered, I will take a close look at those and get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks again.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by philosophizer


This question is completely circular. You describe a situation and then ask a question that doesn't pertain to any of the conditions of the situation you describe. You buddied up to the system I describe so that you can describe the setting and then revert back to your system to ask the question.

The possibility of THWARTING is a part of your system, not mine.

I disagree with you assertions regarding my question, however just to avoid discussing "words" let me rephrase the question....


Let's assume for sake of argument that God knows all of the future in exhaustive detail as you assert.

And at THIS moment He knows that my friend John Doe is not saved.

Let's further assume that God also knows that John Doe will live the next three years of his life rejecting God. Of course God also knows every other detail of John Does life for the next three years as well. God knows.... that in three years John Doe will eventually commit suicide by an overdose of drugs and die an unsaved man on March 3rd 2006.

John Doe knows none of this of course.

Ask yourself: Does John Doe have the ability to make God's "all knowledge" of John's own life for the next three years NOT come to pass?

Can John Doe choose do something otherwsie from God's "all knowledge"?

 

[Nihilo]

Knight,

Isaiah 5:1-4 is a parable to convict the people of Judah. It is quite like Nathan's parable told to David in order to convict David concerning his seduction of Bathsheba and her husband's murder.

The reader/listener is drawn in by the story, and then it suddenly turns on them, saying, "This is you!" The people of Judah (or maybe their works) are the "wild grapes," and God is showing them that they can compare all that he had done for them, to all that a conscientous vineyard-owner does to yield good grapes. Except, the people weren't "good," but "wild."

His question, "Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?" is rhetorical. You can argue to the contrary, but it seems pretty clear. If he really didn't know "wild grapes" were coming beforehand, that's not the same thing as not knowing why they came, after the fact. Which is essentially what you're implying.

As such, I just don't think it's prudent to draw much about God's nature from this parable.

Nihilo

 

[Nihilo]

Knight,

Just in case it wasn't clear, I am pointing out that your argument as stated not only shows God doesn't have foreknowledge, but that he doesn't have present-knowledge either. Not only did he not know "wild grapes" were coming, but he didn't even know how they got there - even with the beneift of hindsight!

Nihilo

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Nihilo
Knight,

Isaiah 5:1-4 is a parable to convict the people of Judah. It is quite like Nathan's parable told to David in order to convict David concerning his seduction of Bathsheba and her husband's murder.

The reader/listener is drawn in by the story, and then it suddenly turns on them, saying, "This is you!" The people of Judah (or maybe their works) are the "wild grapes," and God is showing them that they can compare all that he had done for them, to all that a conscientous vineyard-owner does to yield good grapes. Except, the people weren't "good," but "wild."

His question, "Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?" is rhetorical. You can argue to the contrary, but it seems pretty clear. If he really didn't know "wild grapes" were coming beforehand, that's not the same thing as not knowing why they came, after the fact. Which is essentially what you're implying.

As such, I just don't think it's prudent to draw much about God's nature from this parable.

Nihilo

Exactly. People need to read the Scriptures with common sense and in light of the clear passages that declare God doesn't change.

Knight, is attempting to create a new doctrine from these passages. Completely insane!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Nihilo
Knight,

Just in case it wasn't clear, I am pointing out that your argument as stated not only shows God doesn't have foreknowledge, but that he doesn't have present-knowledge either. Not only did he not know "wild grapes" were coming, but he didn't even know how they got there - even with the beneift of hindsight!

Nihilo

Sorry, but that isn't what the text says.

God talks of Israel as the Vineyard and He talks of how He prepared the Vineyard with nothing but the finest ingredients....

Isaiah 5:2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it.

So, after preparing His vineyard (in the way He did) at THAT POINT He expected "good grapes".

Isaiah 5:2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,.

But, later.... it brought forth "wild grapes".

Isaiah 5:2 He dug it up and cleared out its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. He built a tower in its midst, And also made a winepress in it; So He expected it to bring forth good grapes, But it brought forth wild grapes.

God restates His argument...

Isaiah 5:4 What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Therefore, I appreciate your response but your argument is in error. This has nothing to do with present knowledge as you assert. This chapter has EVERYTHING to do with God's expectations of Israel. If God has complete foreknowledge it would not make any sense for Him to expect something that is NOT a part of His foreknowledge.

 

[Nihilo]

Knight,

Maybe I am mistaken. You're saying that if God had foreknowledge, then he wouldn't ever erroneously expect something that didn't come to pass. This is reasonable to me.

Where I'm not connecting with you is in the question, "Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?" Can't I argue, as you have, that if God knew why his vineyard bore wild grapes, he wouldn't ask why? If he knew why his vineyard brought forth wild grapes instead of good grapes, why would he ask?

Therefore God didn't know at that point why his vineyard brought forth wild grapes, right? God couldn't figure out why wild grapes were growing, so he asked to see if anyone could help him, if anyone else knew, right?

Show me if I'm not making sense.

Nihilo

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Nihilo
Knight,

Maybe I am mistaken. You're saying that if God had foreknowledge, then he wouldn't ever erroneously expect something that didn't come to pass. This is reasonable to me.

Where I'm not connecting with you is in the question, "Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?" Can't I argue, as you have, that if God knew why his vineyard bore wild grapes, he wouldn't ask why? If he knew why his vineyard brought forth wild grapes instead of good grapes, why would he ask?

Therefore God didn't know at that point why his vineyard brought forth wild grapes, right? God couldn't figure out why wild grapes were growing, so he asked to see if anyone could help him, if anyone esle knew, right?

Show me if I'm not making sense.

Nihilo

Oh.. OK.. I see your point and its a good one.

I am sorry for misunderstanding you.

Yes, the "why" is rhetorical, as by then (after the fact) God knew the "why". But my overriding point is at the time God was preparing the Vineyard clearly He was expecting it to bring forth "good grapes".

So in summary....
By the time God saw the "wild grapes" He knew why He had gotten "wild grapes", but clearly during Israel's preparation God was expecting "good grapes" which is a real problem for those who think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future actions of freewill beings.

 

[Nihilo]

Knight,

Oh.. OK.. I see your point and its a good one.

Why, thank you.

Of course, you then went on to say that it was a minor point anyway, but that's okay. Seriously though, it's nice that you're honest and comfortable enough to legitimize an opposing viewpoint. I appreciate that.

But, if you think the "why" question is rhetorical, and that we cannot therefore properly infer much about God from it, then why so the rest of the parable? The parable is clearly not a story about a vineyard-owner and his grapes, but about God and his people.

...clearly during Israel's preparation God was expecting "good grapes" which is a real problem for those who think that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future actions of freewill beings.

If this parable means that God expected "good" grapes, then I agree with you 100,000%. I, as a calvinisticalist, have a problem. It is not some trivial problem either, a loose end that just needs to be tied up. It is catastrophic. If God tells us that there have been times - even one time - when something happened that he did not anticipate, then my view has a huge problem.

But this is the crux of the whole issue, no? It hinges on whether there are examples of God not anticipating an event. What I aim to do is suspend judgment, so that I can with an open mind and a clear conscience judge whether this passage and others show God being surprised. This I will do for my own sake. It is comfortable to continually reaffirm what I already believe (regardless of how well-supported I think it is). It is, however, challenging and enriching and exciting to explore the data candidly.

That being said, I believe I am being honest when I say that this parable is intended to show one thing. It is to show Judah what their disobedience to God is like - it's like wild grapes growing in a carefully maintained vineyard. I just don't see foreknowledge or the lack thereof anywhere in it. And, I didn't want to bring this up, but the NIV and other versions of scripture do not even use the word "expect." To me, that weakens the case further.

Nihilo

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Nihilo, do you think God would lie to get a point accross?

I don't.

'And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.' - Jeremiah 32:35

 

[Nihilo]

Knight, what the screw are you doing?

You're accusing me of disbelief? Gather your courage to meet me head on, without resorting to such an insulting tactic! I offer an honest and carefully considered dissenting opinion and all the sudden I'm accused of infidelity?!

...do you think God would lie...? I don't.

Well la-de-da. Aren't you righteous. And aren't I wicked.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Nihilo
Knight, what the screw are you doing?

You're accusing me of disbelief? Gather your courage to meet me head on, without resorting to such an insulting tactic! I offer an honest and carefully considered dissenting opinion and all the sudden I'm accused of infidelity?!Well la-de-da. Aren't you righteous. And aren't I wicked.

I wasn't accusing you of anything. Clearly you misread my question to you.

I simply asked if you thought God would lie to make point and then I cited...

'And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination , to cause Judah to sin.' - Jeremiah 32:3

Therefore, either it really didn't enter God's mind that man would be so evil as to do what they were doing OR He wasn't exactly telling the truth in Jer 32:3 wouldn't you agree?

 

[Freak]

*